Harry and Meghan had perfect platform for their ambitions, but royal life didn't pay enough

[Furniture]

The UK press was incredibly unfair and, in my opinion, blatantly racist towards the young lady. And one thing we are consistently reminded of me that a lot of people are told what their opinion should be, and then spout whatever that is as if it truly is their own opinion. Piers Morgan is a good example -- he will say whatever nonsense he does, and a certain segment of society will believe that & run with it, regardless of it's factuality.

Things must've been pretty unpleasant for them to even have to talk about the skin tone of their baby - that shouldn't be a conversation people should even have to have, especially in modern times - and leave a life of guaranteed wealth & protection.


0.02

It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data.

As to skin tone, the context of the conversation matters. Was it a casual questioning of what the baby's complexion would be, just like other people wonder about eye colour, hair colour, etc., or was it actually a racist "I hope the child looks white"? To my knowledge the context of the comment wasn't given, which means based on our own perceptions of the people involved we draw conclusions... If you dislike the royals then it was obviously intentionally racist, but if you question the motivations of people who say they want to live a private life, yet do an Oprah interview, it casts some doubt on the situation.

Could it have been genuinely racist as alluded to? Absolutely yes. Could it have been an innocent question born of genuine curiosity? Absolutely yes.

 

[CBH99]

It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data.

As to skin tone, the context of the conversation matters. Was it a casual questioning of what the baby's complexion would be, just like other people wonder about eye colour, hair colour, etc., or was it actually a racist "I hope the child looks white"? To my knowledge the context of the comment wasn't given, which means based on our own perceptions of the people involved we draw conclusions... If you dislike the royals then it was obviously intentionally racist, but if you question the motivations of people who say they want to live a private life, yet do an Oprah interview, it casts some doubt on the situation.

Could it have been genuinely racist as alluded to? Absolutely yes. Could it have been an innocent question born of genuine curiosity? Absolutely yes.

Very fair point, well said.

I actually don't really like, or dislike, the royals. I'm pretty apathetic either way.

Context absolutely matters, and very fair point you made indeed.

 

[lenaitch]

Just take a look at the differing degrees of "participation" there is by the various members of the royal family as it sits now. When is the last time someone has seen Princess Anne's kids doing any heavy lifting.

I don't think Peter and Zara Phillips (Anne's kids) are considered 'working royals'; i.e. on the 'civil list' as receiving a public income.

The UK press was incredibly unfair and, in my opinion, blatantly racist towards the young lady. And one thing we are consistently reminded of me that a lot of people are told what their opinion should be, and then spout whatever that is as if it truly is their own opinion. Piers Morgan is a good example -- he will say whatever nonsense he does, and a certain segment of society will believe that & run with it, regardless of it's factuality.

Things must've been pretty unpleasant for them to even have to talk about the skin tone of their baby - that shouldn't be a conversation people should even have to have, especially in modern times - and leave a life of guaranteed wealth & protection.


0.02

The British tabloid press can be pretty unfair to anybody they set their sights on.

 

[Furniture]

Very fair point, well said.

I actually don't really like, or dislike, the royals. I'm pretty apathetic either way.

Context absolutely matters, and very fair point you made indeed.

I'm much like you in that I generally don't care one way or another about the personal lives of royals/celebrities, but this drama has me scratching my head.

It's easy to not like either side in this, as both have potentially done horrible things.

We recently went through having someone who was beloved by the public investigated for abuses of her staff, and the results of the investigation were pretty damning. It is quite possible that the Dutchess(not Archer) was abusive towards her staff, as alleged by her staff. Maybe her staff were emboldened to come forward by the success of the investigation into our own Vice Regal. At the very least the accusations against her should bear as much weight as the accusations against the "Firm", and both sets of accusations are shockingly close to one another, which means either side could be looking to cover up past transgressions.

 

[mariomike]

Seeing Harry do a heart to heart with Oprah reminded me of this.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data.

Then it's also possible that different people saw the same things and reached different conclusions to each other. This is from about a year ago, well before the Oprah latest, showing different interpretations of similar situations between 2 royal wives: "Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life"

 

[Furniture]

Then it's also possible that different people saw the same things and reached different conclusions to each other. This is from about a year ago, well before the Oprah latest, showing different interpretations of similar situations between 2 royal wives: "Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life"

Is racism the only explanation for the differences?

Couldn't have anything to do with one being American, and the other British. Couldn't have anything to do with one eventually becoming the Queen, while the other will always be a Duchess? There are sometimes a few years between headlines, and in those intervening years attitudes toward certain topics may have shifted in society. Could it potentially be something as simple as the fact that some people are resentful that the "most eligible bachelor" in the world was taken? On top of all of that, she is a divorced American actor. The royals have never had an issue with anyone like that in the past...

I have no doubt that racism may have had some impact on some of the reporting, but I also allow for the fact that other factors may have been just as/more influential on the tone of reporting.

I get why they wanted out of the realm of the British tabloid press, I would never hold that against anyone. Just don't ask me to feel bad for you when you go to the American tabloid press to get back into the public eye.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Then it's also possible that different people saw the same things and reached different conclusions to each other. This is from about a year ago, well before the Oprah latest, showing different interpretations of similar situations between 2 royal wives: "Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That May Show Why She And Prince Harry Left Royal Life"

What’s the difference between this and when Sarah Ferguson was failing miserably in the pop charts against her much loved paragon of ALL the virtues sister in law? The press plays favourites, not everyone gets the trophy, no matter how much we all deserve it.

 

[OldSolduer]

I get why they wanted out of the realm of the British tabloid press, I would never hold that against anyone. Just don't ask me to feel bad for you when you go to the American tabloid press to get back into the public eye.

You win my vote here. Let's not forget that Meghan M is an actor by trade. How much is real and how much is well rehearsed lines.

 

[mariomike]

Outrage over magazine cover of Queen kneeling over Meghan's neck like George Floyd.

WARNING: Disturbing image.

Fury over magazine cover of Queen kneeling on Meghan's neck like George Floyd

WARNING DISTURBING IMAGE: The controversial publication has sparked outrage again with its latest edition, which features a disturbing caricature of the Queen that recreates Mr Floyd's death at the hands of a police officer

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[PMedMoe]

That's horrible.

 

[The Bread Guy]

That's horrible.

But it sells

And let's see how many people who defended Hebdo for publishing Mohammed pix step up now in support of "freedom of the press" and against "cancel culture" over this ...

 

[Weinie]

But it sells

And let's see how many people who defended Hebdo for publishing Mohammed pix step up now in support of "freedom of the press" and against "cancel culture" over this ...

Let's hope that a bunch of radical Meghan Markle fans don't kill Charlie Hebdo journalists.

 

[FJAG]

Let's hope that a bunch of radical Meghan Markle fans don't kill Charlie Hebdo journalists.

Why would they? Seems like it's the Royalists who would be upset by this.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Why would they? Seems like it's the Royalists who would be upset by this.

Then there's the 'invisible contract' between the press and the Royals. It would seem that Megs and Hank stepped outside of that and, like any good Mafia protection racket-like arrangement, there are consequences:

Harry and Meghan: What's the media's 'invisible contract' with British royalty?​

And then there are informal arrangements, such as the so-called "pressure cooker agreement", where the paparazzi would leave Prince William and Harry alone during their education, "in return for intermittent occasions when they would be invited to staged photograph opportunities" - such as Prince William's 18th birthday at Eton College.

Harry and Meghan: What's the media's 'invisible contract' with British royalty?

Prince Harry spoke of an "invisible contract" between his family and media - what does it involve?

www.bbc.com

 

[mariomike]

They said on the news that he was back on Oprah, again. That's not for me to judge.

But, as a kid, my heroes were cowboys. Pretty hard to imagine, for me at least, the likes of John Wayne going on her show to commiserate about his "feelings".

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's equally possible that people see the same things you do, and come to different conclusions than you based their interpretation of the data.

As to skin tone, the context of the conversation matters. Was it a casual questioning of what the baby's complexion would be, just like other people wonder about eye colour, hair colour, etc., or was it actually a racist "I hope the child looks white"? To my knowledge the context of the comment wasn't given, which means based on our own perceptions of the people involved we draw conclusions... If you dislike the royals then it was obviously intentionally racist, but if you question the motivations of people who say they want to live a private life, yet do an Oprah interview, it casts some doubt on the situation.

Could it have been genuinely racist as alluded to? Absolutely yes. Could it have been an innocent question born of genuine curiosity? Absolutely yes.

My wife is very dark skinned (south Indian) and I am very fair (Scots) so discussions of our kids skin colour was quite the topic and my wife had a dream just before birth that she would come out looking like a spotted cow. I had to tell her that the kid did not look like a cow, the nearby nurse was confused Cracking skin colour jokes are very common in our household with 4 different varieties.

 

[Good2Golf]

They said on the news that he was back on Oprah, again. That's not for me to judge.

But, as a kid, my heroes were cowboys. Pretty hard to imagine, for me at least, the likes of John Wayne going on her show to commiserate about his "feelings".

Fake cowboys, or real cattlemen/ranch hands?

John Wayne...meh...he was just an actor, you know, like Meghan...he did the exact same back in the day, for what outlets were available.

I liked the Jimmy Stewarts and Clarke Gables of the acting world of time...

 

[mariomike]

Fake cowboys, or real cattlemen/ranch hands?

Weren't too many that were authentic. Ben Johnson and Slim Pickens were.

Gary Cooper was a good horseman from Montana.

I liked the Jimmy Stewarts and Clarke Gables of the acting world of time...

Pretty hard, for me at least, to imagine Jimmy or Clark doing her show - if it had been on the air back then.

Not that there would have been anything wrong with that, of course.

To his credit, Gene Autry flew "the Hump" during the war. And Audie Murphy was in a lot of westerns, after the war.

Like the old song, "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott?"

I think it refers to the "strong silent" types. Seems, again to me least, they are in rather short supply these days.

( Scott served in the U.S. Army in France in World War 1. )

 

[FSTO]

The Duke owned a working Cattle Ranch in Arizona - Bar 26 Ranch

I remember when my dad would get the American Hereford Association Journal and the Bar 26 Ranch was a regular advertiser. In their ad the Duke and his ranch partner pictures were always in the banner.

John Wayne Once Owned a Large Cattle Ranch: Take a Tour of the Spectacular Property

John Wayne and a cattle ranch. Those two things go together about as well as peanut butter and jelly, a burger and fries, and bacon and eggs.

outsider.com